Photo from inside airplane - possible weather mod setup

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


LOL!!!

This fails, yet again.

Because.....every photo of so-called "chem"trails that are ranted about show the "trails" always, ALWAYS directly aft of each engine, and a clear gap between the exit of the exhaust, before the "trail" is visible!!

Your *gotcha* doesn't "get it"....such examples as that B-747, specially fitted just for that wingtip vortex test, are few and far between.

Now, once you have found the evidence of such large commercial jets....dozens, hundreds even, every day, where voluminous amounts of "spray" are being spewed from places directly attached to the trailing edges of the wings, with no invisible gap.....

...And, provide photos of them in flight, plus pictures of the apparatus that is installed, when ou *catch* them on the ground.


You'll be a "chem"trailer's hero!!

Wealthy beyond all dreams of avarice....and Will Thomas and Cliff Carnicorn will be angry, at you muscling in on their turf, their gravy train of deception.....

reply to post by ProudBird

I have never paid a penny to anyone for chemtrail information. Nor do I ever intend to make any money from them. All information I have seen and am willing to provide is free and open to the public.

I would trust people like Mr. Carnicom, who puts his name and reputation behind what he says, a lot more than I would trust a person like yourself who hides behind a computer with a picture of a plane and wishes to remain anonymous.

You have seen this document haven't you? It details the cost and some design of the chemtrail program.

Notice Fig. 11 on page 26

Aurora Report

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Figure 11 is a schematic of a proposed ultra high altitude (above 80,000 feet) jet engine.

Please learn to read and comprehend.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


LOL!!!

Yes, seen that document.

What, you think it is some sort of *blueprint* to describe what is actually occurring??

And Page 26, Figure 11. So? Wait, instead of me telling you what it means, let's try this:

What do YOU get out of it? I want to see how well you understand the concept there.


But in any case...while it;'s an interesting read, and truly imaginative from an engineering standpoint, all one has to do is read the cover page, on the front. This bit:

Geoengineering Cost Analysis

See there? I even underlined the important part.


"Chem"trail believers are amazing.....grasping at any fragile straw possible.


Oh, and Carnicorn?? I didn't say he made money off of you, per se. Just, his brand of lunacy manages to lure many, many and separate them from their wallets. (And make them waste their lives in futility).

Just because he puts his "name" on his ridiculous claims doesn't mean any of it is credible! Many such charlatans continue to scam the public, in just about every area you can think of, and use their real names. As long as they don't break the law, nothing will happen to them legally.

But, if they can find suckers to buy their BS, well....makes them happy, dunnit?

Think of all the infomercials on TV, where some celebrity someone-or-other adds their name to a piece of over-priced junk, to sell it by mail? It is "let the buyer beware", folks!

reply to post by ProudBird


A Government funded scientific cost analysis report is hardly grasping at straws.

If you really think that then you are just proving to me your own ignorance.

I don't care how many LOL's or little smiley faces you want to put in your posts.

See I can do it too....You debunkers never cease to amuse me.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Do you have any evidence that someone is ACTUALLY DOING IT??

Just wondering.....

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

A Government funded scientific cost analysis report is hardly grasping at straws.

Oh? A cost analysis report...call it a feasibility study if you want to.

It means nothing in terms of the fantasy of "chem"trails! You dare to call me ignorant? Consider the logic, here:

"Chemtrail" claims have been around since the idea (hoax) was invented sometime in the 1990s

"Chemtrail" believers say that it has been *happening* all this time

The cost analysis report clearly is dated as being finalized (and therefore one would assume, delivered to the client) in 2010...Last year!!


SO, tell us --- have they implemented all of the brainstorming ideas in that report? And, did they also build a time machine to go back nearly 20 years to use those inventions and concepts in the report?

It makes one wonder, sometimes, about the rationality of the thought process being employed. Wonder also, if that one report is *used as proof*, whether those who cite it have even bothered to visit the company's website?:

aurora.aero...

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
reply to post by Gradius Maximus

 

Okay, I will tell you exactly what you are looking at here. See those orange cables? There signify that it is Flight Test Equipment. Standard for Airbus and for Boeing aircraft. Additionally, you can see the Flight Test Engineer Stations at the rear. Those canisters are water ballast cannisters. They are there to enable the engineers to move the centre of gravity of the aircraft in flight to test flight performance.

Nothing sinister.
Trust me, I used to be a Flight Test Engineer at Airbus, so I know what I am talking about.

Edit: It is not a French aircraft, it looks like a Boeing. Plus Airbus use larger ballast tanks and are mounted vertically.

edit on 14/10/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: Added Text

edit on 14/10/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: (no reason given)

Your exactly correct. S4U

Click here for more information.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


please list all the things you have done to date to combat the chemtrail problem.

Locations and times only please.

I thought this part interesting,

'Airplane geoengineering operations are comparable to the yearly operations of a small
airline, and are dwarfed by the operations of a large airline like FedEx or Southwest'

So it doesn't matter really if 'chemtrails' are fact or fiction, or if global warming/climate change is fact or fiction, there is a reiterated scenario in place for implementation. The rationale for implementation is currently debatable, the eventual outcome is unknown. Whether anything like that has been trialled is unknown. Would it actually be used if deemed necessary, failing everything else probably yes. Would you know about it, probably not.